Follow by Email

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

New York Times Editorial, "Mr. Netanyahu’s Unconvincing Speech to Congress": "Nothing New" About the Response of the Times

In an editorial entitled "Mr. Netanyahu’s Unconvincing Speech to Congress," The New York Times tells us that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech offered nothing new:

"Mr. Netanyahu’s speech offered nothing of substance that was new, making it clear that this performance was all about proving his toughness on security issues ahead of the parliamentary election he faces on March 17. He offered no new insight on Iran and no new reasons to reject the agreement being negotiated with Iran by the United States and five other major powers to constrain Iran’s nuclear program.

His demand that Mr. Obama push for a better deal is hollow. He clearly doesn’t want negotiations and failed to suggest any reasonable alternative approach that could halt Iran’s nuclear efforts.

Moreover, he appeared to impose new conditions, insisting that international sanctions not be lifted as long as Iran continues its aggressive behavior, including hostility toward Israel and support for Hezbollah, which has called for Israel’s destruction."

The conclusion of the Times was almost identical to that of President Obama, who declared after Netanyahu's speech:

"I did not have a chance to watch Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech. I was on a video conference with our European partners with respect to Ukraine. I did have a chance to take a look at the transcript. And as far as can I tell, there was nothing new."

Great minds think alike? I don't think so. Why doesn't the Times simply open an office in the West Wing for the sake of efficiency and transparency?

At least the editorial board of the Times was not "near tears" after listening to Netanyahu, as was Nancy Pelosi. Interesting: Pelosi can listen in rapture to mass murderer Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, and declare after meeting him:

"We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel."

Yet Netanyahu makes Pelosi, who concluded that Assad wanted peace with Israel in 2007, want to cry. Go figure . . .

[You might wish to compare the editorial of the Times with that of The Washington Post, which reaches a radically different conclusion.]

1 comment:

  1. So, they wanted something new? Would that have made them favorably disposed to the content? Novelty, a new angle, something to perk up the office? I guess the prospect of war with a shorter breakout time isn't exciting or novel enough.